Sorry, still fail to see 100% of your reason. FS is a sport, there will be injuries, skaters have to decide for themselves the price they are willing to pay. If 3a is such a risk then the reward shuld be higher, and that ties back to MM's original post should they inc the base value of 3a. Mao said she will try to bring back 3/3 does not mean she will be able to. Not sure whether she will be bringing back 3t or 3l as the second jump. She has higher success rate of not being DG with her 3f/3t. OTOH 3f/3l has higher base value, again higher risk higher reward.

1). I'm not 100% certain Mao can bring back her 3-3, but IF she can and still do the 3A, then certainly, that would amp up the contest (and if she gets better choreo).

2). And I fail to understand your blindness to it. Yes, there's always the possibility of injury; but if there is such a thing as limits. And pushing oneself too hard. I don't think that the 3A value should be increased because it already is quite substantial; it's already, as Mathman stated, 2.2 points higher than the triple lutz. Furthermore, like I stated BEFORE, these are competitors who want to win. And for a competitor, that desire to win can easily translate into over-extention. You're placing too much faith in human reason and logic; people oftentimes don't know their own limits. And even if they do, considering how our media goes on about how "limits are made to be pushed/broken," and their competitve streak, I have a feeling that they would continue practicing, in which they run the risk of incurring a serious injury that could possibly end their skating careers. I mean, Yu-na for example; back in 2006, she was overtraining herself, doing jump after jump even if she fell multiple times. Was she pushing the limit? Yes. Was it healthy? Helluva no.

Plus, you fail to address the fact that harder does not always necessarily equate better. Look at the Men's Long at the Olympics; so many splats from men who were doing things they couldn't handle, such as quads. Plus, we do not need people to start taking on the attitude that 3A= winner.

I agree with more consistent UR calls. I think don't think these calls should be so dependent on tech callers. I think perhaps everyone on the judging panel should be involved in making the final decision.

I think it's a good idea. I think tech panel should only specialize on spins, a step and spiral. Let each judging panel decide if a jump is under-rotated/wrong-edged or not, and average them out. Play them replays if needed. It may be such a burden for them, but if it's what it takes to make this sport a step forward, then it should. Right now, if a tech judge is a certain skater-friendly, it can surely change the color of medal.

What does being "loopless" have anything to do with the topic that is being discussed?

I think it is the second proposal that speaks to the loopless question. Right now, a top skater can do 2 Lutzes, 2 Flips and 3 double Axels in their 7 jumping passes, and rack up a ton of points.

If only two of the new jump were allowed by the Zayak rules, skaters would run out of jumps and would have to include a loop or Salchow. This would require a skater to show proficiency in a different kind of jump technique than just toe jumps and Axels.

This combined jump would also be consistent with the ISU rules on toe-loops (outside edge) and toe-Wallys (inside edge). Toe-loops and toe-Wallys are scored as the same jump by the IJS, even though they go off different takeoff edges.

Someone here thinks 3Lz/F-3T isn't as hard or high-risked as 3A? Let me just say, one user actually counted ones that were landed and ratified in the Men's LP in Vancouver. Interestingly, one more 3A was completed. I know this doesn't say it all, but it seems that some skaters are more comfortable with doing 3A than 3-3.

Someone here thinks 3Lz-3T isn't as hard or high-risked as 3A? Let me just say, one user actually counted ones that were landed and ratified in the Men's in Vancouver. Surprisinly, one more 3A was completed. I know this doesn't say it all, but it seems that some skaters are more comfortable with doing 3A than 3-3.

Yes, that is the whole point of the question raised on this thread. For men, the triple Axel is no big deal and there is no reason to raise the base value. Triple Axels and triple-triples are about equally common.

But for ladies, the situation is much different. Hence the question: should we have a different set of base values for ladies than for men?

If the idea is to give the greatest number of points for the hardest tricks, a triple Axel is much harder for a lady than a quad is for a man (if we judge by how many men can do quads.) Maybe a ladies' triple Axel should be worth as much as a men's quad?

I think you have an interesting point about the triple axels - keep base value the same for women, but maybe raise it for men.

That seems backwards to me. Why raise it for men, when it is an easy jump for men?

But it is a hard jump for ladies, so maybe it would make sense to give the ladies more credit for doing such a hard element.

What I don't get is why PCS have different values for men and women...

The judges give the same marks, but the total PCSs have different multiplying factors for men and ladies. The reason for this is that the ISU wants the TESs to come out about the same as the PCSs, to keep everything in balance.

Since a man is expected to score about 25% higher than a lady in TES, they raise the value of the PCSs by 25%, too.

(Not saying I agree with this rule, just explaining how they do it now.)

That seems backwards to me. Why raise it for men, when it is an easy jump for men?

But it is a hard jump for ladies, so maybe it would make sense to give the ladies more credit for doing such a hard element.

The judges give the same marks, but the total PCSs have different multiplying factors for men and ladies. The reason for this is that the ISU wants the TESs to come out about the same as the PCSs, to keep everything in balance.

Since a man is expected to score about 25% higher than a lady in TES, they raise the value of the PCSs by 25%, too.

(Not saying I agree with this rule, just explaining how they do it now.)

Oops! With the triple axel I meant keep it the same for men and raise it for women! I'll fix that.

And I meant the multiplying factors. Sorry about the errors, I'm tired. Lol.

Again, the base value for 3A could be raised a little more but not to the extent of quad's. But if they are to have different sets of base value of jumps for men and women, the base value of toe jumps (except 3T) could be raised as well, since most men are comfortable with doing them with correct edges but ladies are not.

My point is one huge jump, whether it is 3A or 4T, should not decide the game, a skater with a complete set of triple jumps (even without 3A or 3-3/ 4T for men) should be rewarded more. like giving them additional +5 extra points. +5 may sound a lot, but if you consider a number of skaters who can actually do that, it's reasonable. This way, it encourages more skaters to try new jumps or harder jumps for them, and even harder ones (3A or 4T) are just bonus.

Again, the base value for 3A could be raised a little more but not to the extent of quad's. But if they are to have different sets of base value of jumps for men and women, the base value of toe jumps (except 3T) could be raised as well, since most men are comfortable with doing them with correct edges but ladies are not.

My point is one huge jump, whether it is 3A or 4T, should not decide the game, a skater with a complete set of triple jumps (even without 3A or 3-3/ 4T for men) should be rewarded more. like giving them additional +5 bonus points. +5 may sound a lot, but if you consider a number of skaters who can actually do that, it's reasonable. This way, it encourages more skaters to try new jumps or harder jumps for them, and even harder ones (3A or 4T) are just bonus.

ITA. I mean, how many female skaters actually do a full set of triples? A triple axel is an amazing accomplishment, but it shouldn't overshadow everything else. It's not a jumping contest; it's figure skating.

...a skater with a complete set of triple jumps (even without 3A or 3-3/ 4T for men) should be rewarded more. like giving them additional +5 extra points. +5 may sound a lot, but if you consider a number of skaters who can actually do that, it's reasonable. This way, it encourages more skaters to try new jumps or harder jumps for them, and even harder ones (3A or 4T) are just bonus.

That is the beauty of the Newjump replacing the two old jumps.

The perfectly balanced ladies program would go something like this.

3A if you have it, otherwise 2A
3Newjump+3T if you can, otherwise 3Newjump+2T
3Lo+2Lo
3S
3Newjump
3Lo if it is a good jump for you, otherwise 3T
2A+2T+2T

Every skater would have to at least take a shot at all the different jumps.

The way it is now, a skater can do

3Lz+3T
3Lz
3F+2T
3F
2A+2T+2T
2A
2A

That is a 41.4-point program (plus second-half bonuses) The Newjump rule would make such a lop-sided program impossible.

What if they were to limit the double jumps the way they do the triple jumps? One solo 2A and if a second is done then it would have to be in combination. Same with the 2Loop and 2T.

Wouldn't that encourage more variety in the triples?

I think the reason they allow three double Axels is so as NOT to discourage triple-triples. If you do two triple-triples, or (like Kevin van der Perren) a triple-triple-triple, then you are Zayacked out when you get to your last two or three jumping passes. You would get just as many points by doing a 3Lz and a 3T separately as to do them in combination.

But wih the extra 2A option, you can do a triple-triple and at least grab an extra 3.5 points for the double Axel in the extra jumping pass that you saved.

It still might be a good idea though, You could always do a double Lutz with your extra pass.